Also Goldberg claims that she funneled just $2 million into her LG campaign when shes so far has depleted $2,150,000 of her inheritance on this campaign. OK, maybe that qualifies for a little embellishment, or maybe she cant remember the first $150,000.
Here are the facts that anyone can verify at the OCPF web site. (There are no links, because when you do a database search, the links are not permanent.)
At the beginning of 2005, Deb had $47,623 in her campaign fund she used as Brookline Selectman. She then raised $427,799 in 2005–but a closer look indicates $150,000 of that came from Deb.
So in 2005, she only raised $277,799. Quickly adding up her 2006 monthly receipts, minus her cool two million, and the total fund raising is a meager $258,180.
$277,799 raised in ’05 plus $258,180 raised in ’06, puts her fundraising at less than $536,000. And she has used $2,150,000 of her inheritance for her campaign. So what’s the big deal about a little embellishment–everyone does it? Well, saying that you raised the “same” as Silbert and Murray and you’re no where close is a little more than embellishing, but we’ll use polite language here. And do we really need candidates who have proven that every time they speak, you have to wonder whether they are embellishing again?
Goldbergs campaign has spent a total of $745,000 in 05 and 06 and has only raised $536,000. Thank God for being Daddys Little Girl! (At least Deval, with $350,000so farof his own money and Chris, with God knows how much money spent, earned their money themselves and did not inherit it.
From the Globe: current employment at Bessemer Venture Partners. Hard work to turn around family medical information business.
You all know that I am obviously biased, but after watching that forum tonight on NECN (it really wasn’t a debate, sorry), I got the feeling that Deb was the least sincere. At least I felt like Tim and Andrea were speaking their beliefs. Deb came off like she was always trying to get in her “message” whereever she could. Well, Deb, you are not politically savvy enough to get away with that like other politicians can do in debates or forums, so I’d avoid it. You’re obviously smart, so why not be yourself like the other two. It might just work if you can pull it off… Otherwise, you may encounter a “truth” problem, or, worse, the perception of having a truth problem…
Deb Goldberg takes a distant second to Gabs and his ha ha ha 15.36 million. Oh, and so sorry for Gab’s loss. There is every possibility that Deb’s campaign people screwed up in giving her facts. I, personally, couldn’t care less that she inherited money and decided to use it in Democratic politics. She didn’t jump into the race at the last minute. She’s been working the crowds and meeting people for well over a year. And, I’ll say it again: In person, Deb is very good at assessing her audience. I think she is better than Andrea in this area. Her video was awful, but the intent was to make fun of herself knowing that she would be viciously attacked for being a trust fund baby. Give her a break. She’s a good Dem, and she will support the Dem party nominee.
“In person, Deb is very good at assessing her audience. I think she is better than Andrea” and if I might add, she’s better than Tim is assessing an audience also.
<
p>
This is a great quality in a salesperson, but I think it’s a horrible quality in a leader. Yes, leaders need to persaude–sell their case–and have people follow. Tim and Andrea can do that.
<
p>
But Deb, she gives people what they want to hear. She is full of pithy comments and “action” statements that perks up activists like a strong cup of coffee. But is there any there there?
There are certain qualities that very few leaders have, and the ability to listen and assess is one of those. I think Deb has that quality, which made her much more appealing to me than Andrea in conversations. Deval has that quality and is most definitely a leader. I don’t have a horse in this race and like all of the LG candidates. I hate to see Deb get slapped around for reasons other than her standson issues, which are very good. She shouldn’t be blamed for the facts of her birth, any more than Deval. At some point, Deb decided to do something with her life that had meaning. Deval made that decision too. I say good for them. Now, let’s get rid of the faux manager — Healey.
<
p>
It takes a run for office to give life meaning?
George W Bush took that route. For the sake of long term world peace, I wish he stayed drunk his entire life.
That is not what I meant. Both had careers prior to this campaign and contributed to social good. I imagine both are involved in campaigns now because of their prior experience.
<
p>
2. In my convention video, I did admit that I struggled with the cash register at the grocery store. Luckily, the Lieutenant Gov has no financial duties at all. So I’m qualified.
<
p>
3. I blame Marie St. Fleur!
Maybe we’re coming down a little hard on Deb…after all, what politician doesn’t stretch the numbers? I feel like plus-minus-30% is pretty accurate for a pol on the campaign trail. Plus, there’s always the fudge factor of “that doesn’t count recent donations, pledges, mafia loans, etc etc”
<
p>
Here’s my question – does Deb have any chance to actually win this primary? Any chance at all? I’m sure lots of people here think she doesn’t – does anybody think she does have a chance at beating Silbert and Murray? If so, how? What does she have to do, and is she doing it? Will that $2M help her make up for lost time, or is it all just money down the drain of a doomed campaign?
She’s got more money than anyone. If she blankets the airwaves in a low-profile race, she can win. No one has heard of all three of these candidates except for freaks like us. The winner may very well be the person with the highest name recognition.
Of course she has a good chance to win. Not only does she have way more money than either of them, she’s been laying the groundwork too. She’s no johnny-come-lately – she’s been hitting the Democratic town committees and Democratic breakfast circuit for over a year, far longer than Murray has.
She can win only because of her family money. But no way has she or Andrea been out there like Murray.
To answer yr question, the only poll on the LG race I’ve seen puts Deb in the lead, though undecided wins by a lightyear:
<
p>
My quick search through OCPF records shows some different facts than what you’ve got, Frank.
<
p>
1. I see a contribution on 8/16/05 of $100,000, not $150,000.
<
p>
2. The most recent itemized contributions in the “Search Contributions” database seems to be 7/15/06, meaning that any contributions since then aren’t reflected in that database. They are, however, reflected (but not itemized) in the second half of July 06 bank report. I can’t tell from your figures whether the $18,168.50 that she reported in the second half of July (other than her own $1M) is included.
<
p>
This may be relatively small potatoes. But if you’re off by almost $70,000, then assuming the rest of your analysis is accurate, she’s raised about $600K, meaning that she is “off” by $100K, or about 15%. Suddenly doesn’t sound as bad. Furthermore, I haven’t watched the debate yet, but I’ve been on Braude’s show – his style is to pose short-answer questions very quickly and give you almost no time to react, and from the transcript it looks like this question matched his usual pattern. If she blurted out “7-750,000” off the top of her head, that doesn’t strike me as the biggest sin in the world – I wouldn’t necessary expect any candidate to be able to recall up-to-the-minute campaign fundraising figures with perfect accuracy. She presumably expected to be talking about issues on that show. If Braude wanted to compare fundraising details, he should have had the campaign treasurers on.
<
p>
All of which is to say, this looks like a bit of a tempest in a teapot to me. I’m with lolorb – give the woman a break.
You know as well as any of us do that the #1 thing on candidates’ minds in campaigns is money. It’s what they spend the most time doing and they live and die by the amount they raise by each filing deadline – that’s the internal measure of success. Now, perhaps Deb isn’t is interested or informed in this regard due to her self-funding capacity. Perhaps that’s a good thing. But I contend that one doesn’t lightly plop in a million bucks of one’s own money (as Deb did sometime between July 15 and July 31) and not have a firm handle on where the fundraising stands. I also contend that if you watch the debate, you’ll see that Deb’s reaction to the question was, at first, to say that she’d raised about the same as the others.
<
p>
BTW, if you hadn’t watched the debate, how did you get the transcript before it aired? I presume from a “source” inside the station….
yes.
<
p>
On the other stuff, of course Deb cares about how much she’s raising. Doesn’t mean she’s got up-to-the-minute figures at her fingertips at all times, and I continue to think that if she or any other candidate did, it would be surprising. I really hope you’re wrong that “the #1 thing on candidates’ minds in campaigns is money.” To the extent that Deb can self-fund and therefore not worry so much about raising money from lobbyists and special interests, so much the better. Dems need to get over their phobia about wealthy candidates.
<
p>
Anyway, think about it. Deb knows as well as everyone else that OCPF is a public database. Does she really think no one is going to check up on this kind of thing? Why on God’s green earth would she intentionally misrepresent stuff that is so easily verifiable?
…I did estimate $18,168 raised in July, as for the missing $50,000 you point out…
<
p>
Once you search for Debs reports, go to the 4/5/05 Other Report (D102)–second report from the bottom of the page. Then scroll down and click on the Schedule D (Liabilities) link and you will see that Deb “loaned” her campaign $50,000 on 3/3/05.
<
p>
Yes, Braude was quick with the questions. Watch the debate, as Hoss points out, she first blurted out “the same” as the other two. Then he pressed her for a number and she gave it. Deb doesn’t want folks to know she has poor fundraising skills and wants people to think she’s working as hard as Murray or Silbert. Murray and Silbert are working twice as hard for this job–spending as much time meeting with town and city committees and raising money.
<
p>
If you want a candidate that embellishes by 25 to 30%, then you will get a candidate you deserve. As many have all pointed out, this LG job is really the farm league for Gov or US Senator. Character counts.
Which raises another question. The $100K on 8/16/05 seems to be reported both as a “contribution” (in the 05 year end report, and in the “Search Contributions” database), and as a “personal loan” (on Schedule D of the 05 year end report). Is it possible that that $100K has been deducted twice from the amount of money she’s actually raised?
<
p>
I have no idea how one might go about figuring that out.
I mean, I support Andrea, as everyone knows. And I think this is a very juicy issue that the other candidates can use: “Deb Goldberg intentionally over-stated how much money she had raised from the general public in a televised candidate debate, in order to make it appear that she has broad support — when, in fact, she has little public support except from the Stop & Shop trust fund and is trying to buy the election. This is further evidence that she is out of touch (cf. Convention video) and not an LG candidate who will effectively represent the people.” I think the Goldberg campaign should clarify and explain why the above hectoring statement is incorrect — I assume this is a misunderstanding rather than an intentional embellishment. If what Frank is arguing is correct, however, especially about that curious $100,000, I predict that it will surface later on — or at least, it would if I was directly involved in either the Murray or Silbert campaigns (which I am not, except for helping Andrea raise money).
People have to be REAL, and Deb’s camps problem is thinking we are all very stupid. Money in this race is critical, but ground troops in the field is also very important. I think Murray’s groups has the best field organzation with Andrea right behind. Let’s face it Chris tried to buy an election and did not do that well…. ANd Deval is still ahead in all the polls Hmmmm makes one wonder….
Let’s elected someone who really wants to serve the Commonwealth. Having money and wealth is a great thing, but it’s hard for me to relate to someone who can keep pumbing their own cash into a low profile position. It’s obvious to me that Murray and Silbert shine way above the Goldberg cash cow. Enough is enough with those who try to buy a public service job !